Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: The regimes the West support

What drives support for this torturer

Oil and gas ensure that the US backs the Uzbek dictator to the hilt

Craig Murray
Monday May 16, 2005
The Guardian

The bodies of hundreds of pro-democracy protesters in Uzbekistan are scarcely cold, and already the White House is looking for ways to dismiss them. The White House spokesman Scott McClellan said those shot dead in the city of Andijan included "Islamic terrorists" offering armed resistance. They should, McClellan insists, seek democratic government "through peaceful means, not through violence".

But how? This is not Georgia, Ukraine or even Kyrgyzstan. There, the opposition parties could fight elections. The results were fixed, but the opportunity to propagate their message brought change. In Uzbek elections on December 26, the opposition was not allowed to take part at all.

Two states. One is a democracy ruled by a theocratic and anti-US Islamic government (but one which does not actively threaten other states). The other is a brutal dictatorship which kills its own people for daring to fight for democracy, but which is strongly pro-US in an area where the US has economic interests and geopolitical ambitions.

Why does American rhetoric favour the first, yet American actions favour the second?

Nah, I'm talking in the abstract (but with particular thought to Uzbekistan and the other former Soviet republics).

I don't think you could call Iran a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. I would note that if I were Iran I'd be really rather concerned about Israel (my enemy) having (illegal and undeclared) nukes on my doorstep, and that the NPT gives it the right to nuclear power, but that's about as much sympathy as that regime is getting from me.

But I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about Iran. To put my question another way - does America only support democracy if the people will vote for a government it likes?

does America only support democracy if the people will vote for a government it likes?

Sure it does. However, it is far from alone in this age old practice. Other western nations have been doing this for a while and still do today. International relations by economic interests and national interests. Not very complicated: you do for us and we are willing to ignore certain details...like dictature and oppression.

Remmember Suharto in Indonesia? A dictator for 30 years and he had full western democracy support. The list goes on and on.

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Ewen MacAskill in London
Monday May 16, 2005
The Guardian

The British government clashed openly with Uzbekistan yesterday over the violent suppression of a protest in the former Soviet republic that the Foreign Office said had left hundreds dead.

In an unusual condemnation of a country routinely described as a loyal ally by both Britain and the US, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said yesterday there had been a "clear abuse of human rights".

[...]

The Foreign Office, based on information from its embassy in Tashkent, has acknowledged the toll was "in the hundreds rather than dozens".

In an interview with the BBC's The World This Weekend yesterday, Mr Straw said: "The situation is very serious, there has been a clear abuse of human rights, a lack of democracy and a lack of openness."

Mr Straw also called on the Uzbekistan government to allow independent observers, such as the Red Cross, to visit Andijan.

But asked if Britain would support an opposition movement, he said: "It's for the people to decide on a change of regime, not outsiders."

Right - what has changed is the message from the American Government - "we are on the side of freedom" etc etc. Only when it suits your interests, chaps.

I don't think that hypnotist harbors any illusions about the phoniness of America's "March of Freedom and Democracy"(TM) rhetoric, Homer, but the apologists for Bush War II in Iraq are always, in the good ole American PR way, offering sweet altruistic reasons for the Rape of Iraq rather than admitting the obvious selfish self-interest that guides everything they do. The hypocracy leaves quite a stench.

But I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about Iran. To put my question another way - does America only support democracy if the people will vote for a government it likes?

Pretty much. The West will not back a democracy that puts into power an anti-Semitic group, or a democracy that supports terrorist activities. Is the support of Uzbekistan hypocritical to Bush's spreading democracy message? 100% I cannot think of a better refutation of his support for democracy everywhere. However, I think Bush's backing of the Orange Revolution was if anything tepid, he should have done more, and should be applauded for not selling them out.

Here's something people forget. America is not some unbelievably powerful super-state that can afford to spend billions of dollars to guide every policy decision everywhere. At any rate, it's not America's fault there is a corrupt regime in Uzbekistan, but I certainly agree, it is rather shameless of our country to support them to acheive our ends.

Nah, I'm talking in the abstract (but with particular thought to Uzbekistan and the other former Soviet republics).

I don't think you could call Iran a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. I would note that if I were Iran I'd be really rather concerned about Israel (my enemy) having (illegal and undeclared) nukes on my doorstep, and that the NPT gives it the right to nuclear power, but that's about as much sympathy as that regime is getting from me.

But I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about Iran. To put my question another way - does America only support democracy if the people will vote for a government it likes?

Israel would like to make peace w/ Iran. They had good relations w / the shah.

As for the rest sorry for misunderstanding your post.

If the people killed were regular people then the US can not in good faith support the regime.

Other facts may still come to light.

As for the rest I agree w/ Kuros he says everything a lot better than I do.

In an unusual condemnation of a country routinely described as a loyal ally by both Britain and the US, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said yesterday there had been a "clear abuse of human rights".

Actions speak louder than words. What concrete steps will the UK actually take? States may speak idealistically but they act realistically. Only ideologues expect them to be the same. Or maybe idiots.